Council and Bailiffs get it wrong AGAIN!

[mikeymack2002]

Here is yet another case where a vulnerable adult was given a lot of grief for a CT debt. The defendant handled it the wrong way and this saw them in Court!

 

 

But both the EA and LA got it wrong again!!! But as you will read they sorted it out far too late as normal...

 

 

'Paul Inns, defending, told Welshpool Magistrates Court Dockerill was of good character with no previous convictions.

 

He informed magistrates his client suffered with Asperger’s and officers turned up banging on the door at 6am, refusing to show any ID. Dockerill attempted to find information showing he had paid the bills, before the situation escalated.

 

The next day, he was on the phone to the council when officers returned to seize items.

However he passed the phone to officers, who agreed a mistake had been made by the county council, and the matter was dealt with.

 

Mr Inns added there was no intention to cause violence and Dockerill, who was fully co-operative, acknowledges he should have dealt with things differently.

 

Magistrates made Dockerill subject to a six month conditional discharge and ordered him to pay £40 costs and a £15 victim surcharge'.

 

Main story from here >> http://www.newsnorthwales.co.uk/news/162868/berriew-man-threatened-bailiffs-with-hatchet-and-hammer.aspx

 

 

Lead story from Scoop

 

 

So with this in mind and the many threads regarding vulnerable debtors where and when will people start to try to understand that is not so simple and that this needs sorting out before something really awful happens to an EA?

[Peterbard]

This seems to be about the bailiffs not having a record of the debt already being paid.

Apart from a passing mention of vulnerability there is no further relevance ?

 

In any case as the court ruled he was still guilty of assault , which he of course was.

[brassnecked]

Something already has, a bailiff was shot during an eviction in Brixton in 2013

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2354847/Brixton-Shooting-Bailiff-female-colleague-injured-try-evict-tenant.html

 

Surely in the case you highlighted MM, the council knew the guy had Aspergers, had paid the bills and was unstable no debt existed so are at fault for sending the EA's to possible serious injury?

[brassnecked]

If the council had done it's job properly and seen no debt existed they wouldn't have sent the EA, and therefore no crime would have been committed by the alleged debtor. The council are at fault for sending the EA's in. The Aspergers had a bearing as it was a potential vulnerability if it affected the debtor's comprehension of the situation, had the debt existed. The numpty who got it wrong at the council should be disciplined.

[Peterbard]

If the council had done it's job properly and seen no debt existed they wouldn't have sent the EA, and therefore no crime would have been committed by the alleged debtor. The council are at fault for sending the EA's in. The Aspergers had a bearing as it was a potential vulnerability if it affected the debtor's comprehension of the situation, had the debt existed. The numpty who got it wrong at the council should be disciplined.

 

The cause for complaint is the fact that the iinfo regarding the bll being paid had not been transmitted to the bailiff.

 

Also a bailff has every right to attend in a case of potential and even actual vulnerability.

Edited June 7, 2016 by honeybee13
Provocative sentence removed.

[tobyjugg2]

Also a bailff has every right to attend in a case of potential and even actual vulnerability.

 

Shouldn't they also display their proper identification when requested?

They apparently didn't

 

Shouldn't they also have left the property if they feared for their safety and called the police?

They didn't

[Peterbard]

Shouldn't they also display their proper identification when requested?

They apparently didn't

 

Shouldn't they also have left the property if they feared for their safety and called the police?

They didn't

 

Yes and yes.

[tobyjugg2]

Yes and yes.

 

Thank you for that.

Are they being investigated by their regulating body?

What is that process please?

[mikeymack2002]

The reason for posting was as always to show that something needs to be done as far as communicating between LA/EA/debtor it can only help in the long run.

 

 

Sorry for the long delay as I went shopping and got side tracked.

 

 

So on the other side of this story whom would be responsible within the LA to inform of possible vulnerabilities? When I have to deal with my LA on the different levels that has always been a lack of communications regardless of whom is reporting any issues.

 

 

Does anyone actually care enough to look in to this? But as normal there are far too many debts going out to the EA that there is NOT enough time in the day to even truly look in to this is there?

 

 

So I have come to the conclusion the LA either doesn't care or are too lax in their work!

[Coughdrop]

Does anyone know what training EA's get regarding identifying vulnerabilities? I wonder also who does the training, and what qualifications they have?

 

It would be interesting to know. However it is done, it appears not to be working too well.

[tobyjugg2]

Vulnerabilities aside, and even failure of LA to notify aside, there seem to be many issues with the implementation of this.

 

 

• The claimed issue with the enforcers refusing to properly identify themselves
  
• The issue with the claim they were in fear of injury, yet did not leave and call the police, particularly as the defendant was apparently just initially escorting them off his property
  
• The issue with the claim they were in fear of injury, and in addition to not simply leave and wait for the police, they apparently in fact escalated the confrontation
  
• Not least the simple fact that the enforcers did not simply check that the issue had not been resolved as the defendant claimed, they would presumably be happy to call to ensure a bank transfer went through
  

All this aside from any vulnerability and the failure of the local authority to notify, which could be expected to occur from time to time.

 

As stated, it would seem clear that the enforcement agents should be at the very least sanctioned, and possibly assessed under misconduct.

I'm astounded the Judge/magistrate didn't comment on that - or did he?

[brassnecked]

The cause for complaint is the fact that the iinfo regarding the bll being paid had not been transmitted to the bailiff.

 

Also a bailff has every right to attend in a case of potential and even actual vulnerability.

 

tobyjugg As stated, it would seem clear that the enforcement agents should be at the very least sanctioned, and possibly assessed under misconduct.

I'm astounded the Judge/magistrate didn't comment on that - or did

 

Spot on the council were at fault, and yes the EA's had every right to attend, as they could allegedly spot vulnerability. The councils mistake was the root cause of the issue and the non debtor's action though.

 

TJ, the court would probably only be looking at prosecuting the non debtor for having a go at the bailiffs, they are on the side of light in the eyes of the law, so whether they looked at the council cock up, and bailiff visit as a mitigation is anyone's guess.

[Bailiff Advice]

As is always the case with these press articles, only limited information is given. It is this lack of information that leads us all to make assumptions (which may be right or wrong).

[tobyjugg2]

TJ, the court would probably only be looking at prosecuting the non debtor for having a go at the bailiffs, they are on the side of light in the eyes of the law, so whether they looked at the council cock up, and bailiff visit as a mitigation is anyone's guess.

 

True, but a competent Judge/magistrate could and should comment on it.

In my view it seems that the lack of proper process on the part of the enforcers, if their actions were as stated, was a prime instigator of the escalation.

 

I agree that it was 'right' the enforcers attend given the situation as stated - although why three turned up is perhaps open to questions.

 

Mistakes happen in all areas, and proper process is usually there at least in part to ensure that any (quite possible - we are all fallible) earlier failures do NOT result in issues getting out of hand.

 

These enforcers apparently did not follow required process, let alone appear to act competently or professionally. It seems clear that a simple check phonecall would have avoided this issue entirely.

 

A competent professional body would jump on that and investigate properly to ensure any 'rogue' operators or bad practices were minimised.

 

Its a controversial area at best, rogues running roughshod over people and escalating situations that they really should be avoiding as an industry is unacceptable. If they dont act on these events, then the industry should be at the very least far more heavily regulated, with proper independent oversight.

 

Perhaps investigation and sanctions is happening with this case, but I cant find evidence of that occurring.

[brassnecked]

Good points TJ, they came back the next day and it was sorted over the phone, but the damage was already done. Council officials and the EA's need investigating, and retraining or sacking imho.

 

BA is correct in the opinion that we can only conjecture on what is not presented to us in that article.

[Peterbard]

What is that process please?

Sorry TJ i did nt notice this query, the answer is quite long winded I am afraid.

 

There is no regulating body for bailiffs unfortunately. One of the reasons the act was "shelved " back in 2007 was to give the opportunity for a regulatory body to be assigned or created. For various reasons this did not happen. Part 3 and schedule twelve were brought into use in 2014 without one.

 

The bailiffs do have a trade association! "CIVEA" who have a web page and complaint can be made to them, however in the opinion of many (including mine) this is quite simply a device to waste the debtors time and prevent them making proper complaint, certainly I have never seen any significant sanction against an individual bailiff or bailiff firm issued by them.

 

Complaint procedure really depends on the creditor and the type of debt, I was going to go through the procedures , but ther is one here which explains much better, im hoping the admin dont mind me linking as it is a cab advice sheet.

 

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/debt-and-money/action-your-creditor-can-take/bailiffs/complaining-about-bailiffs/how-to-complain-about-bailiffs/

[Schindler]

Great post Tobyjugg, you're right. BA is right saying don't leap to conclusions and sticking up for the bailiffs, but you can only go on what you've got. Agree with Brassnecked too that courts seem to favour bailiffs.

[tobyjugg2]

Is the law on bailifs/EA's side?

 

Well there is little doubt the Law-yers are, and I would assume that in most cases the poor devils on the other side have no legal representation, and as we see often, people (including me) might not be completely objective on issues that are important to them.

 

I must admit if 3 guys turned up at my door saying they were going to take my car, refused to show ID, I would explain that they were in the wrong and then defend my property too, and think about calling the police after I had called a couple of friends to get around PDQ.

I wuldn't risk waiting a few hours for the police to attend. I think many people wouldn't - hence the rules regs and guidelines.

 

Emotive defense of your castle aside (which they should be aware and trained in):

 

Given the bailiffs/EA or whatever in this case apparently refused to give identification, the only course of action is to complain to the local authority who 'instructed' them, as stated - probably pointless and undoubtedly too late.

 

I wonder what would have occurred if the defendant had called the police?

Possibly the enforcers would have then shown their ID and the police would have stood by. Possibly the enforcers would have been moved to confirm as they should have.

 

This case does appear to show all that is wrong with SOME enforcers, and the lack of process to properly manage rogues.

 

Very disappointed in the judge/magistrate as described, although it appears that the defendant did himself no favours at all.

 

https://www.gov.uk/your-rights-bailiffs/what-you-can-do-when-a-bailiff-visits

 

https://www.gov.uk/your-rights-bailiffs/how-to-complain-about-a-bailiff

[tobyjugg2]

Just reading this back from 2013

http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/SN04103

[Coughdrop]

Is the law on bailifs/EA's side?

 

 

 

I wonder what would have occurred if the defendant had called the police?

Possibly the enforcers would have then shown their ID and the police would have stood by. Possibly the enforcers would have been moved to confirm as they should have.

 

 

I have not seen the police stick up for the debtor very often. Usually, they do one of three things:

 

i) Refuse to attend, stating it's a civil matter, thus avoiding becoming involved.

 

ii) Arrive (in their own time) and state correctly they are there to stop a breach of the peace occurring, but then incorrectly act too hastily in arresting the debtor, or watch idly as the bailiffs provoke a reaction from them which leads to the breach.

 

iii) Back the bailiff(s) to the hilt, assuming the debtor is in the wrong.

 

Very disappointed in the judge/magistrate as described, although it appears that the defendant did himself no favours at all.

 

The defendant should not have acted as they did. However, as you've stated very clearly, there appears to be a failure by the powers that be to carry out their job properly. Often they help LIP's by asking probing questions themselves, but it appears, from the little we know, this was not the case.

[Schindler]

Agreed again Tobyjugg and Coughdrop. It does seem the law backs the bailiffs against debtors. The system is unfair.

[tobyjugg2]

or watch idly as the bailiffs provoke a reaction from them which leads to the breach.

 

We dont know of course, but as described it certainly seems to be a distinct possibility that escalation was the intent of the enforcers, but we dont really know if the reporting is accurate, or as biased as many posts on forums, and would never be able to prove it unless the bodycams showed that.

 

Proper oversight and ensuring standards are met do appear to be completely lacking for these EA/bailiffs doesn't it.

 

Two questions for the experts:

 

Were those bailiffs actually breaking the law, as they apparently did NOT actually have a valid reason to be there, whatever paper they had?

Particularly as they could and should have confirmed the issue was current when it was denied (whether everyone denies it or not)

 

Is there NOT positive confirmation on the day of (or before) the visit, not passive assumption and some belief its not their problem?

 

 

(all aside from apparently turning up outside allowed hours and refusing to properly inentify themselves)

 

Mind you, if no organised body is addressing these, whats the point? Is there a consumer group pursuing these?

[Coughdrop]

 

 

Two questions for the experts:

 

Were those bailiffs actually breaking the law, as they apparently did NOT actually have a valid reason to be there, whatever paper they had?

Particularly as they could and should have confirmed the issue was current when it was denied (whether everyone denies it or not)

 

Is there NOT positive confirmation on the day of (or before) the visit, not passive assumption and some belief its not their problem?

 

 

(all aside from apparently turning up outside allowed hours and refusing to properly inentify themselves)

 

Mind you, if no organised body is addressing these, whats the point? Is there a consumer group pursuing these?

 

The silence is deafening! lol

 

Would you care for a very amateur effort?

[tobyjugg2]

The silence is deafening! lol

 

Certainly is.

 

No thank you, I was looking for a response from those who appear to be part of the self regulation/members group, so who should know - and perhaps should be actually addressing the issues in this case rather than promoting it.

 

Gets into difficult areas.

The enforcers like anyone, including the 'not debtor', have the right to defend themselves,

BUT What rights do those enforcers (or anyone) have to subdue - effectively attack - a person on that persons own property?

- When them leaving (and if necessary returning with proper officers of the law) would avoid confrontation and undoubtedly IS in their training and requirements?

 

and if no rights to do so, what charges did they possibly escape in this case?

 

Assault is not a civil offense to my understanding.

 

 

Interesting small article here

https://www.gov.uk/reasonable-force-against-intruders

although it does clearly say in the home, and little else clearly.

 

 

 

 

Seems to me that both were in the wrong

 

The debtor (or not as it turns out) should have gone inside and called the Police, but everyone knows that they can take forever to arrive, by which time your car is gone.

 

The enforcers should have left the property and called the Police (in addition to all the other alleged breaches of code).

 

The person who was actually not a debtor should not have got an ax, to the people who should not have been on his property, mob handed, threatening to take his goods.

 

 

The real injustice seems to be that ONLY the (none) debtor appears to have been punished for his mishandling of protecting his property.

- Something even those who have never heard of FOTL can understand and deeply sympathise with.

 

That does seem to be injustice.

 

 

So rather than as stated in the original post

"So with this in mind and the many threads regarding vulnerable debtors where and when will people start to try to understand that is not so simple and that this needs sorting out before something really awful happens to an EA?"

 

Something needs to be done to stop awful things happening as a result of EA's negligence, blatant mismanagement and abuse of their own guidelines.

 

 

Realistically, even if the EA's had followed their procedures regarding identifying themselves and calling at reasonable hours, the situation could still have progressed similarly.

but This does not absolve the EA's of their breaches in those regards

 

But the EA's should further have:

 

1. Ensured the debt was current

- which would have meant they didn't even attend the place and no escalation would have occurred

 

2. Even if the debt had still been current, at the appearance of an irate person with an axe

- they should have avoided escalating physical confrontation and left until the police arrived rather than put themselves, the innocent person, and any bystanders in danger.

It seems to me that someone appearing with an axe is a clear case requiring the Police to handle it.

 

These EA's are supposed to be trained professionals, so of course more should be expected of them than of an ordinary person in their home

- and yes, darned right ordinary people will get violent in defense of their homes and loved ones.

[Coughdrop]

The silence is deafening! lol

 

Certainly is.

 

No thank you, I was looking for a response from those who appear to be part of the self regulation/members group, so who should know - and perhaps should be actually addressing the issues in this case rather than promoting it.

 

Yes, their reluctance to address your question speaks volumes.

 

 

These EA's are supposed to be trained professionals

 

EA's will never be professionals to my mind, even if I have an arguably old fashioned view of what constitutes a professional person. They have a job to do, but a pretty unpleasant one.

 

You've raised some very interesting points here, and I hope some of the people you hoped would respond will, indeed, come along and opine on your comments. It would be a shame to have another deafening silence!